CIT v. Murali Lodge

211 ITR 897High Court1995#5017 most cited
24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)(iii)(b)section 2(14)(iii)section 2(14)put to useagricultural incomelong term capital gaincompanybusiness

Judgments citing CIT v. Murali Lodge

SUDARSANAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:707/Chny/2025 धनि्धरणवरध/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudarsanam, The Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(6), 68/52. Sithivinayagar Koil St., Vs. Tambaram. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. [Pan:Btwps-8389-E] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनव््कीत्रीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 घोरण्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…nd purchased to be put to use to decide as to whether the land was agricultural land or not on the date of sale. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has placed reliance on the earlier decisions in the case of M.Venkatesan Vs.CIT (144 ITR 886) and CIT vs.P.J.Thomas (211 ITR 897) and CWT Vs. E. Udayakumar (284 ITR 511) to hold that the intention of the buyer to use the land purchased cannot determine the fact as to whether the land sold was agricultural land or not on the date of sale. 12. The ld.AR therefore submitted that the observations of the AO that the lands were purchased by the real estate developer and the lan…

PRECOT LIMITED ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.132/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Precot Limited Sf No.559/4, D Block, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, Hanudev Info Park, Nava India Road Corporate Circle-2, Udaiyampalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 028. Pan : Aabcp 3038K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 10(14)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

…whether the land is capital asset or not. In support of this, learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following case laws:- i) PCIT Vs Anthony John Pereira reported in (2020) 425 ITR 134(Bom) vide order dated 04.02.2020 ii) CIT Vs P.J.Thomas (1995) 211 ITR 897 in Tax Case Appeal No.553 of 1992 vide order dated 18.08.1992. 9 iii) CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Rathi (2018) 404 ITR 173 (Mad) vide order dated 07.12.2017. 10. On the other hand, the learned Sr.DR Mr.Hema Bhupal, JCIT argued that facts are admitted and there is no dispute, but interpretation of the provisions of clause(a) to section 2(14)(iii) of…

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Shubhash Jain, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

…he AO in the original proceedings as the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the assessee. In support of his submission, he further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P. J. Thomas reported in (1995) 211 ITR 897(Mad.). The ratio of the said judgment was also relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shri Krishna Mohan Chourasia vs. ITO in ITA No.853/Ind/2017 for A.Y. 2014- 15. 8. We have carefully considered these two judgments as relied upon by the Ld.AO. We find that in an identical situation while granting relief to the assessee by excluding…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.R.KODANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/175/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

…placing reliance on CIT Vs. Murali Lodge5 has held that the Assessing Authority and CIT(A) were not justified in holding that the subject land could not be treated as agricultural lands. 5 (1992)194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PATTABHIRAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/179/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

…placing reliance on CIT Vs. Murali Lodge5 has held that the Assessing Authority and CIT(A) were not justified in holding that the subject land could not be treated as agricultural lands. 5 (1992)194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.ANANDARAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/176/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

…placing reliance on CIT Vs. Murali Lodge5 has held that the Assessing Authority and CIT(A) were not justified in holding that the subject land could not be treated as agricultural lands. 5 (1992)194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M.R.PRABHAVATHY

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/177/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

…placing reliance on CIT Vs. Murali Lodge5 has held that the Assessing Authority and CIT(A) were not justified in holding that the subject land could not be treated as agricultural lands. 5 (1992)194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAM

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/520/2014HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

…placing reliance on CIT Vs. Murali Lodge5 has held that the Assessing Authority and CIT(A) were not justified in holding that the subject land could not be treated as agricultural lands. 5 (1992)194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M.R.PADMAVATHY TRUST

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/298/2015HC Karnataka22 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260

…placing reliance on CIT Vs. Murali Lodge5 has held that the Assessing Authority and CIT(A) were not justified in holding that the subject land could not be treated as agricultural lands. 5 (1992)194 ITR 125 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 19 16. Thus, the…

SRI KAMANAHALLI PILLA REDDY NAGESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(3)(5), BANGALORE

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

…the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in its order in the case of M.R. Seetharam (HUF) (supra), agreeing with the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT V Murali Lodge reported in (1992) 194 ITR 125 (Ker), has held that BIAPPA is not a Municipality, but a mere planning body. The relevant portion of its order at paras 8.3 to 8.3.5 is extracted hereunder:- " 8.3. We have carefully considered the reasoning of the authorities below and also the divergent contentions of either of the party on the issue. Indeed, BIAAPA performs only planning and z…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. RENAISSANCE CULTIVATION LLP,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1416/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…that "taxation or exemption from taxation depends upon the subject of transfer answering or not answering the definition of capital asset at the time of transfer and at no other point of time." In the subsequent decisions reported in CIT v. P.J. Thomas [1995] 211 ITR 897 (Mad) and (CWT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 (Mad)), it was held that the subsequent treatment has no relevance in the matter of considering a capital asset. It is no doubt true that the purpose for which the purchaser had purchased was totally different from what the transferor had intended to use the lands in question but as held in the d…

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in its order in the case of M.R. Seetharam (HUF) (supra), agreeing with the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT V Murali Lodge reported in (1992) 194 ITR 125 (Ker), has held that BIAPPA is not a Municipality, but a mere planning body. The relevant portion of its order at paras 8.3 to 8.3.5 is extracted hereunder:- Mr. K.P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore Page 15 of 66 " 8.3. We have carefully considered the reasoning of the authorities below and also the divergent contentions of either of the party on t…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI vs. M/S.COCHIN MALABAR ESTATES & INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/179/2014HC Kerala28 Oct 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 260A

…ation or exemption from taxation depends upon the subject of transfer answering or not answering the definition of capital asset at the time of transfer and at no other point of time." In the subsequent decisions reported in CIT v. P.J. Thomas [1995] 211 ITR 897 (Mad) and (CWT v. E. Udayakumar [2006] 284 ITR 511 (Mad)), it was held that the subsequent treatment has no relevance in the matter of considering a capital asset. It is no doubt true that the purpose for which the purchaser had purchased was totally different from what the I.T.A. No.179/2014 -23- transferor had intended to use the lands…

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

ITA 853/IND/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 68

…which is also a gram panchayat and both Village Lasudalya Ramnath and Village Kurawar are gram panchayats and these villages are neither municipalities nor cantonment boards. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Thomas as reported in [1995] 211 ITR 897 (MAD.) has held that: ITA No.853 of 2017 10 Krishna Mohan Chourasia “ _____________Even as regards the second question, it is seen that under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the exclusion of agricultural land as capital asset, would be applicable to land within the limits of a municipality and not a panchayat. The land sold by the a…

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

ITA 28/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2

…0(37) . It was submitted that the aforesaid land is situated in Velapadi Village Panchayat which is within 2 to 3 kms of Arani Town. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. P. J. Thomas reported in (1995) 211 ITR 897(Mad.). So, it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that AO applied amended provisions ITA Nos.27 & 28/Chny/2017 :- 18 -: while making additions in the case of the assessee relevant to the ay: 2008-09 & 2009-10 and held the said land to be capital assets. The learned counsel for the assessee claimed that for relevant period , the…

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

ITA 27/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2

…0(37) . It was submitted that the aforesaid land is situated in Velapadi Village Panchayat which is within 2 to 3 kms of Arani Town. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. P. J. Thomas reported in (1995) 211 ITR 897(Mad.). So, it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that AO applied amended provisions ITA Nos.27 & 28/Chny/2017 :- 18 -: while making additions in the case of the assessee relevant to the ay: 2008-09 & 2009-10 and held the said land to be capital assets. The learned counsel for the assessee claimed that for relevant period , the…

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1187/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satish ChauhanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)

…aiming exemption u/s. 2(14) of the Act. In support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Smt. T. Urmila Vs. ITO, 57 SOT 88 (Hyd.); ii. CIT Vs. Murali Lodge, 59 Taxman 590 (Kerala); A.Y. 2011-12 iii. CIT Vs. P J Thomas, 211 ITR 897 (Mad.); iv. ITO Vs. P Venkataramana, 46 ITD 484 (Hyd.). 3.1 The ld. AR contended that the agricultural land of the assessee is at a distance of approximately 14 km from Raipur Municipal limits, NRDA may be a local Authority but it is not akin to Municipality. None of the members of NRDA are elected. All the members are nominated by the State Gov…

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1186/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satish ChauhanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)

…aiming exemption u/s. 2(14) of the Act. In support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Smt. T. Urmila Vs. ITO, 57 SOT 88 (Hyd.); ii. CIT Vs. Murali Lodge, 59 Taxman 590 (Kerala); A.Y. 2011-12 iii. CIT Vs. P J Thomas, 211 ITR 897 (Mad.); iv. ITO Vs. P Venkataramana, 46 ITD 484 (Hyd.). 3.1 The ld. AR contended that the agricultural land of the assessee is at a distance of approximately 14 km from Raipur Municipal limits, NRDA may be a local Authority but it is not akin to Municipality. None of the members of NRDA are elected. All the members are nominated by the State Gov…

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1185/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satish ChauhanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)

…aiming exemption u/s. 2(14) of the Act. In support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Smt. T. Urmila Vs. ITO, 57 SOT 88 (Hyd.); ii. CIT Vs. Murali Lodge, 59 Taxman 590 (Kerala); A.Y. 2011-12 iii. CIT Vs. P J Thomas, 211 ITR 897 (Mad.); iv. ITO Vs. P Venkataramana, 46 ITD 484 (Hyd.). 3.1 The ld. AR contended that the agricultural land of the assessee is at a distance of approximately 14 km from Raipur Municipal limits, NRDA may be a local Authority but it is not akin to Municipality. None of the members of NRDA are elected. All the members are nominated by the State Gov…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. A.V.THOMAS LEATHER & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD., CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2101/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2067/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 2(14)

…s, the Madras High Court found that the land is classified as agricultural land and the agricultural operations were carried by the assessee. By placing reliance on the earlier judgments in M. Venkatesan v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 886, CIT v. P.J. Thomas (1995) 211 ITR 897 and in CWT v. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511, it was found that the purpose for which the buyer has purchased the land was totally different from what the transferor had intended to use the 5 I.T.A. No.2067/Mds/15 I.T.A. No.2101/Mds/15 lands in question. Since the assessee intended to cultivate the land and in fact, agricultural operation…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2